Forgive and Forget?: Examining the Influence of Blame and Intentionality on Forgiveness Following Hypothetical Same-Sex Infidelity in the Context of Heterosexual Romantic Relationships

Abstract

The present study investigated responses to imagined same-sex infidelity committed by a partner in a heterosexual relationship. The motivational theory of infidelity and research on communicative infidelity were used as guiding frameworks for exploring differences in perceptions of blame and intentionality as a result of varying motivations for engaging in same-sex infidelity (i.e., cheating due to attraction, experimentation, sexual preoccupation, sexual depression, sociosexuality, jealousy, vengefulness, or not viewing the infidelity as cheating). It was predicted that greater perceptions of blame and intent would be associated with more negative transgression-related interpersonal motivations (i.e., more revenge and avoidance; less benevolence) and an increased expectation of terminating the relationship due to the partner’s same-sex infidelity. Whether these relationships would replicate or differ according to the partner’s motive for committing the hypothetical same-sex infidelity was also tested. Results revealed that, in general and across motives, attributions of blame were positively associated with revenge, avoidance, and relationship termination; perceived intentionality was positively associated with avoidance; and blame was negatively associated with benevolence. Furthermore, across most motives, blame was indirectly associated with relationship termination through avoidance and benevolence, and these associations were not moderated by biological sex. These findings and their implications for research on infidelity specifically, and relational functioning more broadly, are discussed.

Notes

¹ It is possible that the “not cheating” motive was evaluated as less realistic by participants due to its likely function as a secondary, as opposed to a primary, goal. Primary goals deal with the desire to attain some sort of outcome, while secondary goals shape the concerns that might arise in the pursuit of achieving that goal (Dillard, Segrin, & Hardin, 1989). It is easy to see how the other infidelity motives – many of which were culled from studies of communicative infidelity, whereby the goal of the infidelity is to send a message to a partner – could be viewed as primary motivations for engaging in same-sex infidelity. However, as clearly specified in the content of the “not cheating” scenario, the transgressor does not view her/his same-sex infidelity as an infidelity transgression. As such, unlike the other infidelity motives tested here wherein the same-sex infidelity is primarily used to communicate something to the partner (e.g., a desire for experimentation, the preference for sex with no strings attached, a need to get back at the partner), an act that is not considered cheating by the perpetrator is by definition not used by her/him to achieve any particular relational goal in the same way that the other motives could be argued to do so. In retrospect, it may have been difficult for participants to realistically see this as a driving force for engaging in the same-sex infidelity given that it was not perceived by the transgressor as an indiscretion.